Ohio Revised Code

Ohio Rev. Code § 2305.05 (2026)

Real estate dedicated to public uses

✓ current as of May 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section ORCcodes.ohio.gov (official) Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

Effective:

October 1, 1953

Latest Legislation:

House Bill 1 - 100th General Assembly

PDF:

Download Authenticated PDF

If a street or alley, or any part thereof, laid out and shown on the recorded plat of a municipal corporation, has not been opened to the public use and occupancy of the citizens thereof, or other persons, and has been enclosed with a fence by the owners of the inlots, lots, or outlots lying on, adjacent to, or along such street or alley, or part thereof, and has remained in the open, uninterrupted use, adverse possession, and occupancy of such owners for the period of twenty-one years, and if such street, alley, inlot, or outlot is a part of the tract of land so laid out by the original proprietors, the public easement therein shall be extinguished and the right of such municipal corporation, the citizens thereof, or other persons, and the legislative authority of such municipal corporation and the legal authorities thereof, to use, control, or occupy so much of such street or alley as has been fenced, used, possessed, and occupied, shall be barred, except to the owners of such inlots or outlots lying on, adjacent to, or along such streets or alleys who have occupied them in the manner mentioned in this section.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 16 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1958–2026 · leading case: Taylor v. First Resolution Invest. Corp. (Slip Opinion), 2016 Ohio 3444 (Ohio 2016).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Taylor v. First Resolution Invest. Corp. (Slip Opinion), 2016 Ohio 3444 (Ohio 2016). · cites it 2× “Ohio Procedural Law Controls Ohio’s procedural law on statutes of limitations {¶ 138} The key to the majority’s holding in favor of the decedent’s estate is that Ohio’s borrowing statute, R.C. 2305.05, applies in this case. It does not.”

Wyatt v. Ohio Dep't of Transp., 621 N.E.2d 822 (Ohio Ct. App. 1993). · cites it 4× “In their second assignment, appellants argue that the trial court erred in granting summary judgment on their adverse possession claim because R.C. 2305.05 mandates otherwise. R.C. 2305.”

Nusekabel v. Cincinnati Pub. Sch. Employees Credit Union, Inc., 708 N.E.2d 1015 (Ohio Ct. App. 1997). · cites it 3× “Though we have found no Ohio cases expressly prohibiting the acquisition of a prescriptive easement against a municipality by deciding that particular issue, several cases state that it is well settled that adverse possession cannot be applied against the state or its political…”

1540 Columbus Corp. v. Cnty. of Cuyahoga, 589 N.E.2d 467 (Ohio Ct. App. 1990). · cites it 4× “53827 this court recognized that R.C. 2305.05 carves out an exception to the general principle that municipal corporations are not subject to property loss by adverse possession or prescription.”

Grace v. Koch, 692 N.E.2d 1009 (Ohio 1998). “18 , 21; R.C. 2305.05. Failure of proof as to any of the elements results in failure to acquire title by adverse possession! Pennsylvania Rd.”

Houck v. Bd. of Park Commissioners, 876 N.E.2d 1210 (Ohio 2007). “CA2006-02-030, 2007-Ohio-349 , 2007 WL 210587 , ¶ 12 (the sovereign is said to hold property in trust for the public); but see R.C. 2305.05, which carves out an exception that permits a public street to be adversely possessed, but only where the street “has not been opened to…”

Curl v. Greenlee Textron, Inc., 404 F. Supp. 2d 1001 (S.D. Ohio 2005). · cites it 2× “Ohio Rev.Code § 2305.05 (2005). 10 . At oral argument, Plaintiff conceded that the rigid substantive/procedural approach irrefutably led to widespread forum shopping, and that courts were loathe to allow such blatant manipulation of the judicial system by plaintiffs.”

Barrett v. Wilmington, 2016 Ohio 2776 (Ohio Ct. App. 2016). · cites it 11× “CCOL and the individual defendants subsequently moved for summary judgment as to all claims, alleging that appellant failed to satisfy R.C. 2305.05, a statute requiring that a party fully enclose municipal property with a fence to make a claim of adverse possession.”

Jarvis v. First Resolution Mgt. Corp., 2012 Ohio 5653 (Ohio Ct. App. 2012). “03(B) applied to this matter was of paramount importance because the statute of limitations (at the time relevant to this matter) to bring an action to collect such a debt was (1) in Ohio, 15 years where the contract was in writing, former R.C. 2305.05; (2) in Ohio, 6 years…”

Grace v. Koch, 1998 Ohio 607 (Ohio 1998). “18 , 21; R.C. 2305.05. Failure of proof as to any of the elements results in failure to acquire title by adverse possession.”

Koncsol v. City of Niles, 664 N.E.2d 616 (Ohio Ct. App. 1995). “04(A) was but one statute of limitations for a political subdivision and that the court also needed to consider the others, namely, R.C. 2305.05 and 2305.09. The trial court granted appellee’s motion to dismiss under R.”

In Re Application for Vacation of Alley, 153 N.E.2d 146 (Ohio Ct. App. 1958). · cites it 2× “Now, the questions presented are: (1) Was the alley duly dedicated and accepted as a public thoroughfare? and (2) has it been held adversely by the plaintiffs for a period in excess of twenty-one years as provided in §2305.05 R. C.? The record reveals that in the year 1906 Lyman…”

Show all 16 citing cases →

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.